Submission 2595
Submission to the National
Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Dear Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
31 May 2026
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I am a carer of an NDIS participant
I want to outline the harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. This Bill is too far-reaching to pass as it stands. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication needs. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
The short timeline makes me believe that the government can not possibly review and consider all submissions put forward to them, before making a decision.
Submission 2595
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.
How this affects participants: The decisions that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected.
We are dependent on, and organise our lives around funding. To have funding suddenly reduced or removed would have a catastrophic effect on both the physical and mental wellbeing of my daughter, myself and our family.
Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.
Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions
The issue: The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automatic plan renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restrictions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automatic plan renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions (Part
Submission 2595
4), existing participants face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to
callenge decisions about their supports.
How this afects partcipants: This does not protect partcpiants already on the
NDIS, who coul be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s fnding is reduced
or their plann renewed automatically, they may have limited or no abilty to challenge
that decision. Thsi could make it harder for people to get extra support when thier
circumstances or disability change.
Partipicats need a clear and simple pathway to allow review of ther NDIS plan at
any given time. Their requirements and timing of changes of circumstances cannot
be predicted. Just like non-disabled peopel life is unpredictable!
Recommendation: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supporsts unless equivalent supports are in place, wit independent review rights before any exit decison and accessto unscheduled reasessments preserved.
Unrevewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories
The Minister can reduce fundng for ay support or group of supports by a specified percentage through an instrument that cannnot be challenged (Schedule 1 Part 4). This applies acros all budget categries. Unspent funds will nolonger carry over at plan renewal (Schedulre 1 Part 5).
How this afects partcipants: A participants community participation, capacity building or assistive technology fnding coul be cut without warning and withut any right to appeal. Participants who save unspet funds across plann periods for high- cost items wil lose that ability entirely.
We are dependent as a family on the funds we receive for communitiy participaton, capacity building and assitive technlogy. Reducing th available funds would put
Submission 2595
our family under physical,mental and added financial pressure. Unspent funds need
to be allowed to roll over. Assistive technology is expensive and can’t be “split” into
four equal parts.
Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for
participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before
any funding reduction takes effect.
Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility
The issue: A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment options before they can be eligible for the Scheme (Schedule 1 Part 8). There will also be a removal of whole-of-person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideration (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that previously acknowledged environmental factors and other ineligible impairments could affect support needs will be removed (Schedule 1 Part 3).
How this affects participants: People with disability will need to prove their impairment cannot be treated before they access the NDIS. Once in the scheme, their supports will only be assessed against a single eligible impairment rather than their whole experience. A person’s individual circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them.
This approach ignores the individual range of needs of a participant. We live rurally so access to choice of therapy and support workers is already limited. We already live under financial strain due to the need to juggle employment with caring roles.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate” treatment“ options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due to side effects or complications, a participant’s financial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments.
Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need
The issue: The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct functional capacity assessments must be capable of sufficiently identifying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment.
The named assessment tool is the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I-CAN requires validation to ensure it will sufficiently identify the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be fluctuating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
How this affects participants: If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that fluctuate or vary over time, a participant may be found ineligible or have their supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.
Accurate assessment is critical. Many aspects of a person’s disability are not captured in a “tick a box” or “scale” assessment. The results of assessments are interpreted by someone who is not living the participant’s life. Needs will always fluctuate over time, so a person may be assessed at a good/stable time in their life.
A true and comprehensive assessment would account for all “variations” of a participant’s life.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuating disability, and demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
Submission 2595
Supports cut before replacement system is ready
The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social,
civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent for all participants, reductions that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part 4. The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.
How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
This would have a catastrophic effect on our entire family. My adult daughter would lose her access to study at university, work and volunteer in her community, as well as access required therapy . This would lead to social isolation and decline in physical and mental health. Her choice of how she wants to live her life would be removed. As her parent and carer I could be forced to give up my paid employment to become a full time (unpaid) carer. This would put our family under extreme financial stress along with likely carer burnout.
Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports.